Criticisms on "The Origin of Species": From 'The Natural History Review', 1864

In Short

This text functions as a review and rebuttal of two prominent European critiques of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. The author examines the objections raised by anatomist Albert von Kölliker and French academician Pierre Flourens, systematically correcting their misinterpretations of Darwin’s work. By clarifying the concepts of "teleology" and "natural selection," the text provides a masterclass in scientific reasoning, demonstrating that life is shaped by environmental pressure and trial-and-error adaptation rather than by a predetermined, purposeful design. It remains a vital document for understanding the early reception of evolutionary biology.

The Story

The narrative begins with a survey of the intellectual climate in 1864, noting that while some scholars in Germany and elsewhere were beginning to embrace Darwin’s views, significant resistance remained. The author identifies two primary opponents whose critiques represent different modes of intellectual failure. The first is Professor Kölliker, a serious and thoughtful anatomist who argues that Darwin is a "teleologist"—someone who believes every physical trait exists for a specific, intended purpose. Kölliker finds this "purposeful" view of evolution limiting and proposes an alternative "Theory of Heterogeneous Generation," which suggests that species emerge through a grand, hidden plan of development rather than through the messy, competitive process of natural selection.

The author engages with Kölliker’s objections one by one, addressing concerns about the lack of transitional fossil forms, the nature of sterility in hybrids, and the perceived "imperfection" of organisms. The author argues that Kölliker has fundamentally misunderstood the Darwinian stance, which does not claim that organisms are perfect, but merely that they are "good enough" to persist in their specific environments. The author rejects Kölliker’s alternative theory, noting that it relies on a flawed analogy to "alternation of generations" (a phenomenon where offspring return to the parental type), which contradicts the very premise of evolutionary divergence.

The second half of the work shifts tone significantly, moving from respectful debate to sharp, corrective dismissal. The author turns to the work of M. Flourens, the Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences, whose critique is described as lacking both logic and basic scientific literacy. Flourens’ primary grievance is that Darwin has "personified" nature, treating "natural selection" as a conscious force, which Flourens finds laughable. The author swiftly dismantles this, offering a clear illustration of how physical forces—such as wind and waves sorting sand—work without consciousness to produce "selected" results.

The author concludes by highlighting Flourens’ complete disregard for modern embryology. While Flourens maintains that an embryo is formed "at a stroke" rather than through gradual development, the author uses this error to expose the root of Flourens’ broader failure: a refusal to acknowledge the evidence of modern developmental biology. By the end, the distinction is clear: while Kölliker is a scholar whose errors are worthy of careful, logical correction, Flourens is a reactionary whose rejection of the new science stems from a deep-seated, willful ignorance. The argument effectively shifts the ground from a technical dispute over biology to a broader defense of the scientific method itself.

How It Unfolds

The gathering storm The text opens by situating Darwin’s theory within a wider European context, noting that researchers in philology and zoology are beginning to align with his conclusions. It immediately sets the stage for the conflict by introducing two influential critics who have attempted to publish rebuttals to the Origin of Species.

The anatomy of a misunderstanding The author addresses Kölliker’s claim that Darwin is a "teleologist" who views every biological structure as a deliberate, perfect invention. By contrasting the image of a rifle bullet hitting a target with the image of grapeshot spreading out, the author clarifies that Darwin’s view is rooted in variation and survival, not pre-ordained purpose.

The fallacy of heterogeneous generation The author dissects Kölliker’s proposal for an alternative theory, showing that it leans on a misunderstanding of how species diverge. Through a technical comparison with known biological processes, the author demonstrates that Kölliker’s "grand plan" fails to account for the actual mechanics of change.

The critique of the critic The discussion pivots to Flourens, whose writing is characterized as arrogant and poorly informed. The author uses the example of sand dunes forming on a beach to explain that "natural selection" is a physical reality—the sorting of the weak from the strong—not a mystical personification of nature.

The final assessment The text concludes by addressing the state of embryology, contrasting the modern scientific understanding of development with Flourens' outdated views. By pointing out that Flourens ignores the foundational work of contemporary biologists, the author cements the conclusion that his hostility to evolution is not based on scientific data, but on a rigid refusal to accept new facts.

The People

The central figures in this intellectual drama are Darwin, Kölliker, and Flourens, though each serves a different role in the argument.

Darwin appears less as a character and more as the standard-bearer for a new, rigorous scientific worldview. He is presented by the author as someone who is exceptionally candid, willing to admit the gaps in his own knowledge—such as the laws of variation—without losing the validity of his core theory.

Kölliker is the "honest opponent." He is a man of professional stature whose criticisms, though fundamentally misguided, are rooted in a desire to reconcile the observed order of nature with a philosophical structure. He wants to find a "law" that drives complexity, and his struggle with Darwin’s work reveals the difficulty many 19th-century scientists had in letting go of the idea that nature must have a goal. He ends up different only in that he has been forced to reveal the fragility of his own "heterogeneous generation" hypothesis.

Flourens acts as the foil. He represents the voice of the established, stagnant academic hierarchy. He is defined by his pompous, authoritative tone and his reliance on rhetoric over empirical observation. Where Kölliker is a puzzle-solver, Flourens is a gatekeeper. He fails to engage with the actual biology, preferring to attack the "jargon" and "metaphysical" language of the new theory. He ends the text as a cautionary example of what happens when a mind becomes too closed to accept evidence that contradicts a long-held, but incorrect, worldview.

In Its Own Voice

The author uses a clever analogy to distinguish between the purposeful design of a watch and the random process of natural selection:

According to Teleology, each organism is like a rifle bullet fired straight at a mark; according to Darwin, organisms are like grapeshot of which one hits something and the rest fall wide.

To illustrate how environment acts as a sieve for life, the author uses a geological example:

The winds and waves of the Bay of Biscay have not much consciousness, and yet they have with great care "selected," from among an infinity of masses of silex of all shapes and sizes, which have been submitted to their action, all the grains of sand below a certain size, and have heaped them by themselves over a great area.

The author emphasizes that natural selection is not a promise of perfection, but a process of survival:

Far from imagining that cats exist 'in order' to catch mice well, Darwinism supposes that cats exist 'because' they catch mice well--mousing being not the end, but the condition, of their existence.

What It's Really About

At its core, this text is a meditation on the nature of scientific explanation. The primary question it asks is: How do we account for the appearance of design in the natural world? The author argues that we must choose between two vastly different philosophies. One is the traditional, teleological view, which asserts that everything in nature exists for a specific end, like a machine built for a purpose. The other is the Darwinian view, which suggests that "purpose" is merely a retrospective illusion created by the harsh, filter-like pressure of the environment. The struggle is between a static, comfort-providing belief in a "pre-existing plan" and the dynamic, sometimes unsettling, reality of natural selection, where success is not a divine mandate but a statistical outcome of adaptation.

Why Read It Today

Reading this today is like stepping into the courtroom where the foundations of modern biology were debated. It is a thrilling, intellectually demanding experience that rewards the patient reader with a clear view of how Darwinism survived its initial, often hostile, reception. You will appreciate the author’s sharp wit, especially when he lampoons the "perpetual secretary" whose arrogance blinded him to the evidence at his feet.

The text is not without its hurdles. You will encounter the dense, formal prose characteristic of 1864, and the references to "histologists" and "philologers" may require a quick search to fully unpack the context. Furthermore, the author is deeply entrenched in the Victorian scientific establishment; his casual dismissal of opponents' "good breeding" or "tone" reflects the class-conscious environment of the time. However, these period attitudes actually add to the experience, making the text feel like a living artifact of its era. If you are interested in the history of ideas, or simply want to see a master of logic dismantle a weak argument with clinical precision, this book is an essential read. It remains a powerful reminder that the best defense of a theory is not a marketing campaign, but the patient, persistent application of reason and empirical evidence.